do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-257/11: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — Pangyrus v OHIM — RSVP Design (COLOURBLIND) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark COLOURBLIND — Word sign COLOURBLIND — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, literature, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015118EN.01002301.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/23





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Pangyrus v OHIM — RSVP Design (COLOURBLIND)
(Case T-257/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark COLOURBLIND - Word sign COLOURBLIND - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 118/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pangyrus Ltd (York, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Clubb, Solicitor, and M. Lindsay QC)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: RSVP Design Ltd (Brookfield, United Kingdom) (represented initially by M. Blair, and subsequently by J. MacKenzie, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2011 (Case R 751/2009-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Pangyrus Ltd and RSVP Design Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Pangyrus Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
Case T-431/13: Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL) (Community trade mark — Word mark METROPOL — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the mark — Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial management, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01004902.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/49





Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL)
(Case T-431/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Word mark METROPOL - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the mark - Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 138/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Métropole Gestion (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-A. Roux Steinkühler, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd (Moscow, Russia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2013 (Cases affaires R 723/2012-2 and R 845/2012-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Métropole Gestion and Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Métropole Gestion and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall each bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015068EN.01000101.xml










26.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 February 2015
(2015/C 68/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1346




JPY


Japanese yen


134,92




DKK


Danish krone


7,4650




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73280




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4910




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0773




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,6325




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,419




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,55




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1615




RON


Romanian leu


4,4223




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8017




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4388




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4116




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7997




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5031




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5378




KRW


South Korean won


1 248,89




ZAR


South African rand


13,0250




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1025




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6840




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 617,03




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0908




PHP


Philippine peso


49,988




RUB


Russian rouble


70,3432




THB


Thai baht


36,909




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2395




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9424




INR


Indian rupee


70,3083






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-359/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — B. Martens v Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — National of a Member State — Residence in another Member State — Studies pursued in an overseas country or territory — Maintenance of the grant of funding for higher education — ‘Three-out-of-six-years’ residence rule — Restriction — Justification)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, Netherlands OCT, education grant, free movement of workers, migrant worker, residence








C_2015138EN.01000602.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — B. Martens v Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap
(Case C-359/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - National of a Member State - Residence in another Member State - Studies pursued in an overseas country or territory - Maintenance of the grant of funding for higher education - ‘Three-out-of-six-years’ residence rule - Restriction - Justification))
(2015/C 138/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: B. Martens

Respondent: Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the continued grant of funding for higher education outside that State subject to the rule that the student applying for such funding has resided in that Member State for a period of at least three out of the six years preceding his enrolment.


(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
Case C-43/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — ŠKO-ENERGO s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the ozone layer — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Method of allocating allowances — Allocation of allowances free of charge — Application of gift tax to such an allocation)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU emission allowance, EU law - national law, capital transfer tax, emission trading, interpretation of the law








C_2015138EN.01001902.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/19





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — ŠKO-ENERGO s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
(Case C-43/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the ozone layer - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Method of allocating allowances - Allocation of allowances free of charge - Application of gift tax to such an allocation))
(2015/C 138/25)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ŠKO-ENERGO s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a gift tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings if it does not respect the 10 % ceiling on the allocation of emission allowances for consideration laid down in that article, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
Case T-713/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — 9Flats v OHIM — Tibesoca (9flats.com) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark 9flats.com — Earlier national figurative mark 50flats — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015118EN.01002801.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/28





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — 9Flats v OHIM — Tibesoca (9flats.com)
(Case T-713/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark 9flats.com - Earlier national figurative mark 50flats - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 118/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: 9Flats GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Stoffregen, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann, then S. Hanne, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tibesoca, SL (Valencia, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2013 (Case R 1671/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Tibesoca, SL and 9Flats GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders 9Flats GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
Case T-96/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Mozzetti v OHIM — di Lelio (Alfredo alla Scrofa)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015127EN.01003701.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/37





Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Mozzetti v OHIM — di Lelio (Alfredo alla Scrofa)
(Case T-96/15)
(2015/C 127/50)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ines di Lelio (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Alfredo alla Scrofa’ — Community trade mark No 6 779 151

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 655/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order Ines di Lelio to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 insofar as it relates to Rule 20(2) of that regulation;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-96/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 26 February 2015 — Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural trade, common organisation of markets, interpretation of the law, principle of proportionality, regulation of agricultural production, right of establishment, sugar








C_2015146EN.01002801.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/28





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 26 February 2015 — Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects
(Case C-96/15)
(2015/C 146/34)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC

Defendant: Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 15(2) and (8) of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (1), applied in the light of recitals 9 and 11 in the preamble thereto and the judgments in Zuckerfabrik Jülich I and II, and the general Community law principles of proportionality, freedom to conduct a business and the prohibition of unjust enrichment to be interpreted as meaning that a sugar manufacturer is entitled to reimbursement of production levies paid on the basis of the quantities of quota sugar still held in stock on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Council Regulation No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 (2)?










2.


 






(a)


If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, must the amount of levies to be reimbursed to manufacturers be based solely on the tonnage of sugar held in stock on 30 June 2006?










(b)


If the preceding question is answered in the negative, must the tonnage of sugar to be taken as the basis for reimbursement of the levies be based on variations in Community sugar stock levels between 1 July 2001and 30 June 2006?














3.


May the calculation of the levy to be repaid reasonably be arrived at by multiplying the quantity of sugar deemed to be held in stock in response to in Question 2 by the weighted average of the ‘average losses’ established during the 2001/2006 COM, or must it be calculated differently and, if so, how?










4.


If the foregoing questions are answered in the affirmative, is Regulation No 164/2007 of 19 February 2007 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3) invalid?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1).

(3)  OJ 2007 L 51, p. 17.
Notice of Open Competitions
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: Bulgaria, Croatia, EPSO, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia, competition (EU), legal profession








C_2015068EN.01000201.xml










26.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/2





Notice of Open Competitions
(2015/C 68/02)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:
EPSO/AD/295-300/15
ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5/AD 7)
SPECIALISING IN LEGAL RESEARCH






 


EPSO/AD/295/15 — Lawyers with Bulgarian legal training (BG)










 


EPSO/AD/296/15 — Lawyers with German legal training (DE)










 


EPSO/AD/297/15 — Lawyers with Croatian legal training (HR)










 


EPSO/AD/298/15 — Lawyers with Irish legal training (IE)










 


EPSO/AD/299/15 — Lawyers with Lithuanian legal training (LT)










 


EPSO/AD/300/15 — Lawyers with Slovak legal training (SK)




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal C 68 A of 26 February 2015.

For more information, please go to the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case T-101/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, graphic illustration, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01006101.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/61





Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)
(Case T-101/15)
(2015/C 138/79)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimum Mark (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Representation of the colours blue and silver — Community trade mark registration No 2 5 34  774

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 2037/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision;










—


Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, should it intervene, to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 4, 7(1)(a) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations established by the Court of Justice under Community law.
Case C-221/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — H v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Emoluments applicable to members of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Former member of the Civil Service Tribunal — Application for membership of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) — Decision — Refusal — Appeal procedures — Lateness — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU), universal health coverage








C_2015138EN.01002301.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/23





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — H v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case C-221/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Emoluments applicable to members of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Former member of the Civil Service Tribunal - Application for membership of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) - Decision - Refusal - Appeal procedures - Lateness - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 138/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: H (represented by: S. Sagias, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A.V. Placco, agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders H to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Case T-388/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — Costa Crociere v OHIM — Guerlain (SAMSARA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SAMSARA — Earlier Community word mark SAMSARA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, river tourism, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2015118EN.01002701.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/27





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Costa Crociere v OHIM — Guerlain (SAMSARA)
(Case T-388/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SAMSARA - Earlier Community word mark SAMSARA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 118/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Costa Crociere SpA (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Guerlain SA (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: C. Costa and M. Baccarelli, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2013 (Case R 2049/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Guerlain SA and Costa Crociere SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Costa Crociere SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.